Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

"Teaching men not to rape"

194 replies

Opshinz · 26/03/2014 12:15

I been noticing more and more people spitting rhetoric like this. I love freedom of speech and surely they should be allowed to say this, but.. rather then describe my feelings perhaps I can give an example.

Imagine I was giving a lecture and said "We really need to teach women to stop killing children", or "We really need to teach black people not to eat so much fried chicken".

Anyone have any thoughts?

OP posts:
confuddledDOTcom · 01/04/2014 23:37

It's not a tick list! Someone can be willing without being eager, I'd say willing was probably the important word in that list and the others are bonuses. Same with unwilling.

CailinDana · 01/04/2014 23:41

I think it's just plain mad to talk about levels of willingness and enthusiasm when it comes to someone sticking a part of their body into another person's body. I mean plenty of people get antsy about people standing too close in a queue uand I think it would be uncontroversial to assert that if a person is going to put, say, cake in your mouth, then they should be pretty sure you genuinely want that. Yet when it comes to sex something really bizarre happens and people start suggesting that a man who is fully able to stand at a sensible distance in queues and not shove cake in unwilling people's mouths suddenly becomes blind and deaf when faced with a woman such that all the thunderously loud body language normally obvious to any functioning adult is mysteriously indecipherable to them and they "can't tell" that their silent/uncommunicative/crying partner isn't "really

Beatrixparty · 01/04/2014 23:42

confuddled

I'd say willing was probably the important word in that list and the others are bonuses. Same with unwilling

Me too !

CailinDana · 01/04/2014 23:43

"really" up for sex.

Ffs if you are going to shove things into another person's body make damn fucking certain they want it. If you're not sure don't do it. Simple.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 01/04/2014 23:46

"I think it's just plain mad to talk about levels of willingness and enthusiasm when it comes to someone sticking a part of their body into another person's body. I mean plenty of people get antsy about people standing too close in a queue uand I think it would be uncontroversial to assert that if a person is going to put, say, cake in your mouth, then they should be pretty sure you genuinely want that. Yet when it comes to sex something really bizarre happens and people start suggesting that a man who is fully able to stand at a sensible distance in queues and not shove cake in unwilling people's mouths suddenly becomes blind and deaf when faced with a woman such that all the thunderously loud body language normally obvious to any functioning adult is mysteriously indecipherable to them"

Brilliant.

confuddledDOTcom · 02/04/2014 01:49

Right, do you think this might work if I do it IRL?:

CakeShock

Grin

Sorry, shouldn't have found that funny but I was thinking "you can shove cake in my mouth!"

CaptChaos · 02/04/2014 04:46

Missed the main point again. I would now suggest deliberately. Hey ho.

This however:

I think it's just plain mad to talk about levels of willingness and enthusiasm when it comes to someone sticking a part of their body into another person's body. I mean plenty of people get antsy about people standing too close in a queue and I think it would be uncontroversial to assert that if a person is going to put, say, cake in your mouth, then they should be pretty sure you genuinely want that. Yet when it comes to sex something really bizarre happens and people start suggesting that a man who is fully able to stand at a sensible distance in queues and not shove cake in unwilling people's mouths suddenly becomes blind and deaf when faced with a woman such that all the thunderously loud body language normally obvious to any functioning adult is mysteriously indecipherable to them

is simple brilliance.

DadWasHere · 02/04/2014 05:54

Cake is it? Ok, I will bite. Shoving a piece of cake into a random strangers mouth would be assault actionable by the police. Check. Then there is the person who enthusiastically wants their cake and will bite the hand of anyone who tries to take it from them. Check.

Between those two situations are people who look at cake and say aloud 'I really should not have that piece of cake.' I imagine that virtually all of you would have been in a situation like this and many of you would have uttered similar words at one time or another.

If a person hears those words they are presented with a situation of someone who they know would either like to be convinced about eating cake or are open to the idea of being convinced about eating cake. Possibly they want cake but hesitate because they think they will regret eating the cake later. So what is it you do in a situation like this, change topic to the weather? That would be safest I think.

nooka · 02/04/2014 06:51

I think in those circumstances you put the cake down and say "it's here if you want it" and see what happens next. It's a nice analogy.

I had a chat with my two teens about consent, they've picked up the idea of continuous consent from discussions at school, which is great, I just added that it's not just 'yes', but 'yes please' and that should really apply to any sexual encounter/action, but 100% to penetrative sex.

FloraFox · 02/04/2014 07:45

One of the fallacies is that rape is a case of "he said / she said". This is used to explain the low conviction rates for rape. Most often, however, this is not true. It's a case of "his barrister said / she said". That's one of the reasons I think the accused should be required to give evidence if his defence is that she consented. That would be a step towards levelling the playing field in rape cases.

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 08:28

FloraFox

I was not aware that in most cases the defendant doesn't give evidence (are there any stats as to the numbers ?) What would be the consequence of him/her not giving evidence - the Court making an adverse inference against D ?

CailinDana · 02/04/2014 08:33

Dad, again it's all about body language, along with nuance of verbal language.

If the person smiles, makes eye contact and says "I really should not have that piece of cake" with a laugh in their voice then it's pretty crystal clear that they want to be convinced and it would be perfectly fine for the cake offerer to give it a go. However, if at any point the person then said "actually no I'd better not," turned their head away and stopped interacting then it would be plain they'd changed their mind and if the cake offerer then just went ahead and shoved the cake in their mouth they would be seen as deranged and aggressive. This is all pretty simple stuff, it's actually really easy to tell if someone is keen or not, and it's usually pretty simple to refuse something you don't want but when it comes to sex it seems that a woman's keenness or lack thereof is irrelevant. The default is that sex in on the cards and if she doesn't want that to happen then she has to very definitely and possibly with violence reject it. Why? No one would say "well if there's cake in the room I'll assume you want it and put it in your mouth unless you definitively tell me you absolutely don't want it," or "you shouldn't go to a tea party if you don't want cake. I mean you turned up and looked hungry so it was pretty clear you wanted cake so I gave you some." Eh, no you big lunatic, the person actually eating the cake gets to decide whether they want it or not and if the person offering isn't sure whether they want it or not then the normal, human thing is to just back the fuck off.

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 08:49

CailinDana

Re: your cake analogy - I for one absolutely and totally agree with you. I can't see that there is anyone here not agreeing with this. What I'm asking is why there needs to be this qualification of 'enthusiasm', so to borrow Nooka's words, why a difference between 'yes' and 'yes please'. If the 'yes' is freely and he/she has the capacity to give it - then isn't that sufficient ?

CailinDana · 02/04/2014 09:05

Well, no, Beatrix. To stretch the cake analogy to breaking point. If you offer a friend cake and she just says "yes," with no other indication that she actually wants it, wouldn't you think something was going on and then check if she was ok, and if she actually did want it?

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 09:06

CailinDana

In case of doubt, my post at 8:49 is in reply to your post last night. I hadn't seen your post of 8:33 - only that I take issue with what you wrote about the 'default of sex'. I don't agree that this is indeed a default position. Maybe there are some men out there that think this but I'd have thought it a minority view.

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 09:09

The 'yes' isn't meant to be literal - can't one consent without being bubbly?

CailinDana · 02/04/2014 09:13

I think you're focusing on the word "enthusiasm" too much Beatrix. It seems you're taking it to mean the person is bubbly and excited. Is that the case?

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 09:14

and if you want to go along with the cake analogy...

A: Would you like a bit of cake (offering a plate with cake)
B: I shouldn't really but it looks quite nice, oh go on then...
A: (withdraws plate) Oh ok, maybe later, let me know if when you really want some

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 09:16

Sorry we keep crossing-over each other. I'm think of it from a legal test too as well as a RL situation. If the consent required is 'enthusiastic consent' then what do you mean by it ?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 02/04/2014 09:22

Beatrix

I think it's right to teach enthusiastic/respectful/considerate /ongoing consent even if that's not the legal benchmark, don't you?

It might not be illegal for me to feed my kids macdonalds every day but it's inconsiderate, disrespectful and socially unacceptable. The higher the social standard is set, the better, then no-one would think the bronco example above was "a bit of a laugh"

CailinDana · 02/04/2014 09:22

I mean with all the normal body language you would expect of someone who is keen for a close personal interaction - smiling, eye contact, approving noises or phrases, engagement (rather than submission, unless that's an agreed part of the interaction). It is easy to tell if someone is comfortable and happy or not but if you're not sure then the normal thing is to ask.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 02/04/2014 09:24

Seriously? There are situations in which if someone's a bit hesitant about the cake, you might shove it in their mouth anyway because you're not sure?

Silly.

Beatrixparty · 02/04/2014 09:31

Doc

I think it's right to teach enthusiastic/respectful/considerate /ongoing consent even if that's not the legal benchmark, don't you?

Yes, I do.

CailinDana · 02/04/2014 09:54

The basic message is if you're going to put something in someone's body make very sure they want it. That's not too harsh a standard is it?

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 02/04/2014 14:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.